share_list_my_purchases

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the tool is paginated and returns redemption times, which is modest added value; it says nothing about ordering, page-size limits, or an empty-history result. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, and the pagination scope is stated first. Nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of routing detail rather than structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and both parameters are fully documented. The remaining gap is disambiguation from share_list_redeem_records and share_list_my_uploads, which the description does not address and which an agent would need in order to choose correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'page' and 'page_size' fully documented, including defaults and the 100 maximum, so the schema bears the weight. The description adds only the word '分页', which the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 applies when the schema documents every parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a clear verb-plus-resource ('分页列出我兑换的资料与兑换时间'), stating both the paginated list and the columns returned (materials and redemption times). However, it does not distinguish this from the very similar sibling share_list_redeem_records, leaving the agent to guess which one surfaces redeemed materials.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives and no exclusions or prerequisites. The 'my' scope implies user-scoped auth, but the description never states that callers reach it through an authenticated session, nor points to share_list_redeem_records or share_list_my_uploads as distinct routes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.